On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 08:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:10:40 +1100 > Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > > > I like my version better, but your call. > > Of course you do :-)
You've got to admit mine is a lot neater looking :) > I thought about it a bit, and both versions are really hacks. But in > the end, I'd rather not touch the swapper task because that might give > us some unwanted side effects. Yeah that's true. I don't *think* there would be, but touching swapper is certainly something one should do with caution. > I don't really like my approach where I need to disable and re-enable > all tracepoints. I was thinking of only enabling and disabling just the > syscall ones, but I could imagine another tracepoint with a reg that > could be affected by early boot as well, so I left it touching all > events. My patch is fine for mainline, but I could make a patch for > 3.20 that will only restart a tracepoint if it has its own reg/unreg > functions and does not use the default ones. > > Your patch fixes syscall events. I wanted something that will fix any > event with its own special registration that might also use > for_each_process_thread() or some other call that does not work before > init is created. Yep, that is definitely a benefit. I don't think there are heaps of folks using tracepoints from boot, so it's possible something else was broken and we haven't noticed yet. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
